Tracer Bullet

No, I understand what you are saying and only a true idiot would not. What I am saying is that all the "Cedeno has more potential" excuses as to why he should be starting are unfounded, in my opinion. Right now, no matter what the age, the best option at SS for the Cubs is Ryan Theriot. When Cedeno starts "realizing his potential," and is a better producer - then he will be the best option. I don't think MLB should be an OTJ training occupation. That's what the farm is for. Can you understand what I am saying? So you're saying if Cedeno had a few hundred great ABs in AAA, you might want to give him a run? Say OPS'd somewhere over .900 for 500+ ABs.

Can we trade them Marquis for nothing? Literally, I just want him off the team and someone else to pay his contract. There's probably a rule against that, right? How about a ptbnl?

No, but it's not my fault that our manager is dumb enough to give our worst hitter the most ABs this year. i didn't say that. no, he just really, really, really sucked in 2006. A - you know where our manager is going to hit Theriot (1st) and you can be fairly certain Cedeno would hit 7th or 8th. So the choice is Theriot's OBP leading off or Cedeno at the end with everyone else getting more ABs. So by saying "if theriot gets on base at .325 clip or so, that's all right" it's implicit that you'll accept that from the top spot. B - No, but when asked how bad Theriot would have to be to get yanked, you said his OPS was irrelevant and that his .325 OBP was "ok" and a .271 OBP wasn't. So I'm trying to narrow that down. C - yes, and he was 23. Theriot sucked in 2007, which is more relevant to this issue and his suck is going to leadoff if he's in the lineup in 2008.

How much worse than a .672 OPS does he have to do to qualify as "completely tanks" i don't care about OPS. if theriot gets on base at .325 clip or so, that's all right. ronny's .271 obp in 2006 was not all right. A .325 OBP from a leadoff hitter is ok to you? Theriot has to post a .270 OBP before you'd replace him with Ronny? Did Ronny kick your dog or something?

probably not. am i the only one who is sick of hearing about ronny's "upside" without the caveat that he was horrendous for an entire year and is very unlikely to reach that upside? not nearly as sick as I am of hearing about how horrible Ronny is and how he can't hit ML pitching, without the caveat that he was 23 freaking years old. you say "23 freaking years old" like it's unheard of for a guy to come up at that age and perform well. i'd venture a guess that the average major leaguer breaks into the league around age 23. and i am still waiting for some examples of guys who have been truly horrible players for their entire first year of play, at age 22 through 24, and turned out to be above average major leaguers. Quick and dirty Rich Aurilla Michael Young. Using Cedeno's comparable players, you can add Davey Johnson, Jay Bell, Bill Spiers, and Eddie Taubensee to the list. well i said above average major leaguers, so you can remove bill spiers and eddie taubensee from the list. I don't get it. If Theriot was even average, I could understand this. But you want a list of really good players that were really bad their first year. But what does that matter? We want the best team on the field. If Cedeno is better than Theriot, he should be on the field. He doesn't have to be David Wright or even above average to be better than Theriot.

How much worse than a .672 OPS does he have to do to qualify as "completely tanks"

No, signing Soriano wasn't a good move. It will look even worse with each succeeding year until Soriano retires. CubinNY beat me to it, but no, I don't agree that signing Soriano was the right move. Among the things about which we disagree is whether Soriano is an elite or great player. Signing Soriano was bad b/c his contract is huge compared to the value he brings. The fact that we had a perfectly acceptable alternative for his position only makes it worse. Choosing to sign a FA that is overpaid that plays the position Murton plays is a choice Hendry made. The fact that it would block Murton is not coincidence. It was an obvious result of the decision he made. Why you maintain that Hendry's decisions regarding the makeup of this team and Murton's lack of position on the ML team are separate issues, I have no idea. So I see we're back to longing for the MacPhail Approach, in which any/every top-end free agent is passed over because of the pricetag, and seeking out affordable, serviceable guys is preferred to overpaying for impact guys. Look "overpaid" and "free agent" are redundant terms, especially if you're talking about the upper end of the market. There are no bargain shopping opportunities here. Either you're in or you're out. I'd prefer the Cubs be in, and as I said earlier, the real shame is that they didn't get in sooner on guys like Beltran and Vlad and Tejada. Better late than never, though. Yes, you've got me figured out. I've been saying all along that what I want is the Cubs to spend nothing and just run out league-average players at all positions. I haven't said that we shouldn't have overspent for Soriano because those resources could be better allocated elsewhere. I haven't said Hendry should have made better choices all along in building this team so that he didn't feel compelled to sign a 30+ overrated LF coming off a career year to a contract that will pay him well into his upper 30s. You don't have to bargain shop to spend wisely. Lee's contract, ARam's contract, heck, even Lilly's contract - better decisions. Soriano's contract was Hendry trying to save his own butt pure and simple. Soriano is not the upper end of the market. He may have been the "best" FA last year, but that only says bad things about last year's market. Hendry's inability to construct this team and complete lack of foresight made signing Soriano appear to be his best option - then he went out and signed him to an inexplicable 8 year deal. You're either intentionally misconstruing my posts or you're acting very dense.

Cubs over Tigers in 6.

probably not. am i the only one who is sick of hearing about ronny's "upside" without the caveat that he was horrendous for an entire year and is very unlikely to reach that upside? not nearly as sick as I am of hearing about how horrible Ronny is and how he can't hit ML pitching, without the caveat that he was 23 freaking years old.

Floor and ceiling talk is nonsensical. It's meaningless scoutspeak and has no place in a rational baseball discussion. If either one or both of those two are playing poorly they should be replaced. It doesn't matter if its .290 OBP vs. 270 OBP or whatever numbers one wants to use. Just because you say it doesn't, doesn't make it true. There is definite merit to compare a low-risk, low-reward player to a high-risk, high-reward player. If you know you are getting between a .320 OBP and a .340 OBP with one player, but the other player could give you between a .290 OBP and a .360 OBP, it's worth considering the safer player, especially if you can't afford the low-end production of the risky player. How do we know we're getting a .320 OBP out of Theriot?

do you recall that the cubs went into the last weekend of 2007 without having the division locked up? we won 85 games and took the back door into the playoffs because milwaukee crapped the bed at the end of the year. they have a lot of good young players, and might be a few games better this year. losing a game or two because of poor personnel decisions could cost the cubs a spot in the playoffs. You're exactly right. And losing a handful of games in the first 2 months (or more than that over the course of the year) b/c we have Theriot's .330 OBP in the top spot is going to be a real issue in September. That is, unless we play Cedeno, hit him 8th and he puts up a .750 OPS b/c he's not as terrible now as he was when he was 23. I might be wrong here, but I really don't think any lineup order problem (even having your worst hitter at the top) could cause a team to lose a "handful" of games in two months. Maybe a handful over the course of the season. It's perfectly possible that Theriot's suck at the top of the lineup could cost us 2 games. Especially on the days we get bad outings from our less than stellar SPs. It's just as likely as it costing us 2 games in 2 months by having Cedeno in the lineup hitting 8th v. Theriot in the lineup hitting 1st (as truffle suggested). I took truffle's "a game or 2" and paraphrased it into "a handful" for my comparison. mea culpa.

do you recall that the cubs went into the last weekend of 2007 without having the division locked up? we won 85 games and took the back door into the playoffs because milwaukee crapped the bed at the end of the year. they have a lot of good young players, and might be a few games better this year. losing a game or two because of poor personnel decisions could cost the cubs a spot in the playoffs. You're exactly right. And losing a handful of games in the first 2 months (or more than that over the course of the year) b/c we have Theriot's .330 OBP in the top spot is going to be a real issue in September. That is, unless we play Cedeno, hit him 8th and he puts up a .750 OPS b/c he's not as terrible now as he was when he was 23.

And he has a floor that Theriot doesn't, which is just as important. No - that's complete junk. The arrogance on this board is incredible. Calling people's opinions junk, dismissing arguments with eyerolls and flip, one-sentence replies. I've been around baseball my whole life. I played baseball for four years at a Pac-10 school, and now that I've graduated, I work as a scout for that same school, going around the country and watching baseball for my job. I love what I do. We use a combination of statistical analysis and personal evaluation -- and I'm learning new things every day. I'd like to think I know a bit about baseball and, hopefully, I can bring something positive to the table when I post. But apparently, since I don't have 12,000 posts, it seems that my opinions are just dismissed as "junk." I can hardly get multiple-sentence replies to my posts. Despite a few knowledgeable guys, posting here sometimes feels like pissing in the wind. Sorry for the rant. My refuting your post about Cedeno's floor being relevant has nothing to do with baseball knowledge. Since we aren't picking one or the other to make the team, one is there to replace the other, if necessary. So if Cedeno sucks, you replace him with Theriot. Over the course of 1-2 months, the difference between Cedeno's floor and Theriot isn't going to cost you many wins. So his floor has limited relevance to a discussion of which one to start, whereas the fact that his ceiling is much higher is very relevant since the difference could have a significant effect on the # of runs we score. Not to mention, the difference in runs from Cedeno's floor to Theriot's production might very well be offset by not having Theriot's .330 OBP/sub-.700 OPS getting 700 PAs this year. ETA - I don't know why you think post count has something to do with this. That doesn't make any sense. And if you had quoted my entire response, you'd see that you got a lot more than just 1 sentence.

So we agree then: given where the Cubs were after the 2006 season, signing Soriano was the right move, even though it came at the expense of Matt Murton's shot at an everyday role on this team. And I maintain that the latter was indeed a coincidence and not a conscious choice to phase Murton out of the picture. Look the guy they needed most happens to play Murton's position. That's an unfortunate coincidence, because as you have said, Murton's a useful complimentary player. And I'll remind you that how the Cubs got to where they were after the 2006 season, and the decisions Hendry made that led them there, is a separate topic entirely. No, signing Soriano wasn't a good move. It will look even worse with each succeeding year until Soriano retires. CubinNY beat me to it, but no, I don't agree that signing Soriano was the right move. Among the things about which we disagree is whether Soriano is an elite or great player. Signing Soriano was bad b/c his contract is huge compared to the value he brings. The fact that we had a perfectly acceptable alternative for his position only makes it worse. Choosing to sign a FA that is overpaid that plays the position Murton plays is a choice Hendry made. The fact that it would block Murton is not coincidence. It was an obvious result of the decision he made. Why you maintain that Hendry's decisions regarding the makeup of this team and Murton's lack of position on the ML team are separate issues, I have no idea.

Hit the ball 30' down the first base line, outrun the throw to the bag or jump the guy trying to tag you. Can't fail.

Thanks for the handful of replies, but it's moot now - someone picked up Kuroda. Put Marcum on waivers instead...

And he has a floor that Theriot doesn't, which is just as important. No - that's complete junk. Cedeno's floor is irrelevant. If he's terrible for 2 months, you plug in Theriot. Is there some risk to starting the season with Cedeno at SS, sure. But the upside is worth it. And the risk is minimized by the fact that Theriot is sitting there waiting to start if need be.

agreed. cedeno makes too many fielding and baserunning mistakes, and in 2006 he was one of the worst hitters in baseball. the two guys have roughly the same amount of PAs in the majors; Theriot's big league EqA is .260 while Cedeno's is .214. that's right, .214. with theriot you know what you're going to get, and it's mediocrity, but it's not a complete black hole. cedeno could be a better player, but we've got more than a year of major league sample size to look at, and he's been far worse in that time. for a team that is in contention right now, i don't know if you have another year to see if he will sink or swim. He was 23!!! yes, he was. the guy who was the best player in the national league last year was 24. i understand that most guys don't hit their peak until their late 20s; however, the chances of a guy becoming successful in the major leagues after being one of the worst players in baseball for a full season are very slim. Most organizations don't misjudge a player's value so severely that they bring him up that much before he is ready. Or on the flip side most organizations are dumb enough to write off a player after one awful season in the majors. yes but cedeno had a solid year for WT at age 21, and an excellent 2/3 of a year for Iowa at age 22, followed by a good cup of coffee with the cubs at the end of that year. i'll put it this way, there wasn't a better alternative in the system (unless the cubs had signed furcal, which a lot of people didn't want because we had cedeno) and he'd shown the ability to hit at the level just below the big leagues. going back to the david wright example, he ended 2003 in high-A ball and ended 2004 with the big club, having taken about 400 PAs at AA and AAA combined. i'm aware that every situation is different, but cedeno was 23 years old and had shown success at both AAA and in his abbreviated stint with Chicago. it can easily be argued that patterson was rushed; i really don't think that argument holds true for cedeno. You've established that Cedeno is not as good as David Wright. Well done. CPatt wasn't ready, that was pretty clear. But it's pretty easy to make the argument that Cedeno wasn't ready either. He had just 65 games at AAA in '05 - albeit with great numbers - and was only 23. I think spending all/most of '06 in AAA would have been best for his development. The issue is writing him off based on his 1 year in the big leagues, when that 1 year came when he was 23, when the alternative is Ryan Theriot.

What you're doing is excusing all of Hendry's past mistakes by saying he had to get Soriano. Hendry never had to get Soriano. This should have been a 90-win team years ago. If Hendry was any good at seeing the value of his assets, and could plan beyond today, he wouldn't have been in the position he was in when he grossly overpaid for Soriano. He could have easily fit Murton into a championship caliber team a long time ago if he wasn't just so incredibly incompetent. Instead, he throws good money after bad by continually forcing himself to cover up his own mistakes with bigger and more expensive ones. I'm not trying to excuse all of Hendry's past mistakes. What I'm trying to do is shift the focus away from Hendry's general merits as a GM, and keep it focused on Murton's career path with the Cubs specifically. I'll say it again -- Murton is a good ballplayer, a legit starting LF in this league, and a guy that's very likeable to boot. But one thing he's not is a guy that keeps you from pursuing the premiere free agent in baseball, especially when you're coming off of a disastrous season, as the Cubs were after the 2006 season. Now is Hendry largely to blame for the disaster? Of course he is. Nevertheless, the course of action he chose at that time, given the mess he was complicit in creating, was not only understandable but probably correct as well -- the proof is in the pudding as they say, and in 2007, Soriano was instrumental in the Cubs rebounding all the way from 90 losses to the postseason. Had he passed on Soriano to go with Murton, the Cubs are watching the NLC champ Brewers in the playoffs last year. As was suggested by another poster, declining to pursue Soriano because of Murton's presence would be directly comparable to the decisionmaking that led to the Cubs passing on Tejada because of Alex Gonzalez, passing on Beltran because of Corey Patterson, and passing on Furcal because of, uh, who exactly? So many here were so thrilled to be rid of that mindset with MacPhail's departure, yet here's the same philosophy being preached once again. The bottom line is if you want to break the padlock off of the wallet and go get impact players in free agency, then "complimentary" players like Murton are going to be victims. The alternative is to pass on the impact guys, go with the complimentary guys, and watch October baseball on TV. I'll remind you that this path started when you suggested that Murton's demotion was a result of coincidence and not Hendry's decisions. I've never said Murton should prevent you from signing the premiere FA. Though it would be nice if that premiere FA were actually elite or at least great. When the premiere FA is wildly overpaid for what he brings to the table and his age, it's having a complimentary player like Murton at the same position that allows you to pass on him and better allocate your resources. Of course, you can only pass on him if you haven't spent the last 5 years making horrible decisions about how to build a baseball team. B/c if Hendry hadn't done that, we wouldn't need Soriano - or at least hopefully Hendry wouldn't think we needed him - and we'd have a lot more money to spend on a lot better players where we have no useful alternative (for the last several years, CF, SS, and C w/ the exception of Barret's few good/really good years, SP would be a good one this year).

i do, to some extent. he can be a starting major league outfielder for an average or bad team; the cubs aspire to be better than that, and it's understandable if they regard him as a 4th outfielder. however, to regard a player like murton as a 4th outfielder, you have to develop some of your own low-priced talent unless you are a team like the yankees, and can afford big money players at each position. if you can develop some players who turn into above-average players at their positions (pie, soto hopefully) then a guy like murton is a 4th outfielder. if you can't, then you probably need to use a resource like murton as a starter, and direct your funds toward other positions of need. Agreed. While he could start on some teams right now in LF, having him out there as your everyday LF'er means that you have to upgrade that position. It says something about a player when a player's salary is as vital as his abilities as far as why he is important to a club. He doesn't well enough compared to most starting LF'ers. I always struggle with this analysis. Each of the last 2 years, Murton has posted an OPS above .900 in the 2nd half. He struggled badly in the first half of last year, but he had a ton of PH appearances in the first half and he was just not a good PH (name me all the great 25-year-old PHs though). He's done well in the minors, except for a few games in A ball right after he was traded to the Cubs. Seems to get better every year and posted .900+ OPS in AA and AAA at ages 23-25. Yes, he wasn't a great 24-year-old LF in his first full year in the majors, though he was very good in the 2nd half of that season. Struggled in a spot-starting role as a 25-year-old last year, but again played very well down the stretch. What is it about those facts that screams "not good enough to start in the majors" exactly?

agreed. cedeno makes too many fielding and baserunning mistakes, and in 2006 he was one of the worst hitters in baseball. the two guys have roughly the same amount of PAs in the majors; Theriot's big league EqA is .260 while Cedeno's is .214. that's right, .214. with theriot you know what you're going to get, and it's mediocrity, but it's not a complete black hole. cedeno could be a better player, but we've got more than a year of major league sample size to look at, and he's been far worse in that time. for a team that is in contention right now, i don't know if you have another year to see if he will sink or swim. He was 23!!! And besides, if he's terrible for a month or two, you always have Theriot to fall back on - it's not like we can trade him for anything. And sitting on the bench for 2 months isn't going to hurt Theriot. Heck, it might help him avoid another nasty slip at the end of the year due to being "worn out" from playing so much. Finally, if Theriot's in the lineup all year, he gets 700 PAs b/c he'll hit 1/2. That's a lot of bad or, at best, mediocre, PAs. If Cedeno's in the lineup, his EqA (terrible or otherwise) is hitting 8th and our better hitters all move up 1 spot, meaning they get more PAs, meaning likely more Rs for the team.

What you're doing is excusing all of Hendry's past mistakes by saying he had to get Soriano. Hendry never had to get Soriano. This should have been a 90-win team years ago. If Hendry was any good at seeing the value of his assets, and could plan beyond today, he wouldn't have been in the position he was in when he grossly overpaid for Soriano. He could have easily fit Murton into a championship caliber team a long time ago if he wasn't just so incredibly incompetent. Instead, he throws good money after bad by continually forcing himself to cover up his own mistakes with bigger and more expensive ones. Thank you - this is exactly it. As I stated multiple times - Soriano is but one example of mismanagement. If not for the previous mistakes, we wouldn't have had to overspend for a very good, but not elite LF. We could have used Murton b/c we would have had other very good or elite pieces at other positions (CF, SS, etc). We also wouldn't have 2/5 of our rotation consist of Marquis, Lieber or Dempster.

Evidently every front office guy in baseball. Hendry has been dangling him all offseason, and no one seems to be in any hurry to take him off his hands. You sure he's been dangling him? I get the feeling Hendry may have wanted a replacement 4th OF before he really started offering Murton around.

Murton was sort of collateral damage from the Soriano signing. The Cubs wanted/needed to make a big splash after the disaster of 2006, and it just so happened that the best available FA that year (Soriano) plays the only position Murton's shown himself to be competent at. Under ideal circumstances, the best available FA that year would've been a SS or a 2B or even a RF, and Murton would've been able to remain the everyday LF -- and I bet the Cubs would agree with that. (Next best outcome would be for Murton to display an ability to play a passable RF... he hasn't, at least not in Lou's eyes.) Unfortunately those weren't the circumstances, and so here we are... not by design so much as by coincidence. Coincidence? No, we're here b/c our GM is terrible at building a baseball team. Let's focus on the topic at hand please. Would Hendry have built a better baseball team if he had installed Murton in LF and passed on Soriano? How about if he had installed Murton in RF and passed on Fukudome? Which of those two guys is Murton better than? Recall that since the Soriano signing, the Cubs have made efforts to get Murton regular PT. First Soriano did not work out in CF, necessitating a return to LF; then Murton did not work out in RF because of his defensive shortcomings (real or perceived). So am I to ignore all of your comments because I'm focusing on the topic at hand or did you mean "focus on the topic at hand...after I get my arguments in." Either way, Murton's not better than Soriano or Fukudome, but that's not really the point. Jim has done a terrible job of building a baseball team. Signing Soriano is just one example of this. Sending Murton down so you can carry 12 pitchers in April and carry Mike freaking Fontenot is just the latest example. Matt Murton is one topic. "Our GM is terrible" is a completely different topic. Murton's a good player, and I really like him. But he's not the kind of player that prevents a team from pursuing an elite, impact FA like Soriano. Murton's fate with the Cubs has been sealed since the day Soriano signed. Ill-fated attempts to play both guys out of position (Soriano in CF, Murton in RF) couldn't prevent the inevitable. That's not a reflection on Hendry, that's just the way things are. UNLESS you want to take the opposite position, namely that Hendry shouldn't have signed Soriano because he already had Murton to play LF. The problem there is that you've already admitted that Murton's not better than Soriano, so it kinda blows a hole in your "terrible job of building a baseball team" rant to argue that a better idea would be to use a lesser player over a superior one. That's not the way to win more games. How are Hendry's signings not a reflection on Hendry? That's asinine. He signed a 30+ LF to a huge contract when he had an adequate player in LF that was cheap. And Soriano's not elite. If he could play 2B, fine, but in LF, he's not a guy you spend over $15m a year for. And you clearly didn't read my response or it went right over your head. Soriano's the better player, but Hendry shouldn't have signed him. Since he signed him, certainly he has to play over Murton, but that's not the point. The point is Hendry's bad a building a baseball team. He overspends for a player that blocks a good source of cheap production - which is mismanagement of limited resources. As I said, Soriano is but one example. If Hendry had done a better job of building this team and managing his resources and assets, he wouldn't have felt compelled to spend whatever it took to get Soriano to save his job. But he did, so here we are. Sending down a cheap, 26-year-old LF that would be a perfect complimentary player. But that's not Hendry's fault. He's just the GM. He can't possibly be responsible for managing the roster and resources.

Murton was sort of collateral damage from the Soriano signing. The Cubs wanted/needed to make a big splash after the disaster of 2006, and it just so happened that the best available FA that year (Soriano) plays the only position Murton's shown himself to be competent at. Under ideal circumstances, the best available FA that year would've been a SS or a 2B or even a RF, and Murton would've been able to remain the everyday LF -- and I bet the Cubs would agree with that. (Next best outcome would be for Murton to display an ability to play a passable RF... he hasn't, at least not in Lou's eyes.) Unfortunately those weren't the circumstances, and so here we are... not by design so much as by coincidence. Coincidence? No, we're here b/c our GM is terrible at building a baseball team. Let's focus on the topic at hand please. Would Hendry have built a better baseball team if he had installed Murton in LF and passed on Soriano? How about if he had installed Murton in RF and passed on Fukudome? Which of those two guys is Murton better than? Recall that since the Soriano signing, the Cubs have made efforts to get Murton regular PT. First Soriano did not work out in CF, necessitating a return to LF; then Murton did not work out in RF because of his defensive shortcomings (real or perceived). So am I to ignore all of your comments because I'm focusing on the topic at hand or did you mean "focus on the topic at hand...after I get my arguments in." Either way, Murton's not better than Soriano or Fukudome, but that's not really the point. Jim has done a terrible job of building a baseball team. Signing Soriano is just one example of this. Sending Murton down so you can carry 12 pitchers in April and carry Mike freaking Fontenot is just the latest example.